DOCSLIB.ORG

Final 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Appendix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Appendix AVIATION AND AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS APPENDIX Southern California Association of Governments ADOPTED APRIL 2012 AVIATION AND AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS Regional Air Passenger Demand Forecast Scenarios for 2012–2035 Re- Regional Aviation Policies and Action Steps 97 gional Transportation Plan 1 Background 97 Background 1 Airport Ground Access Report 100 I. Comparison of Regional Air Passenger Demand Forecasts with Other Recent Forecasts 1 II. Descriptions and Allocations for 2035 Baseline, Low Growth and High Growth Regional Objective of the Study 100 Air Passenger Demand Forecast Scenarios 2 Evolution of the RTP Airport Ground Access Element 101 ATAC Recommendation 4 Updated Airport Demand Forecasts 104 Summary of Projects by Airport 111 Regional Air Cargo Demand Forecast Scenarios for 2012–2035 RTP 5 V. Challenges to Implementing High Occupancy Public Transportation Projects 140 Background 5 VI. Recommendations to Assist Future RTP Updates 141 I. Regional Air Cargo Activity Trends 5 APPENDIX I: Airport and Agency Contacts 144 II. TranSystems 2035 Forecast of Total Regional Air Cargo 7 III. Allocation of Regional Air Cargo to Airports 7 APPENDIX II: High Occupancy Public Transportation and High Speed Rail IV. Revised 2035 Air Cargo Forecasts 8 146 Regional General Aviation Forecast 9 II.1 High Speed Regional Transport System 146 II.2 High Occupancy Public Transportation 148 Introduction 9 References 162 Federal Aviation Forecasts of General Aviation Activity 32 Pilot Cohort Analysis 39 APPENDIX III: Characteristics of a Successful Airport Express Bus 163 Pilot Attrition 40 III.1 Introduction 163 Summary and Conclusions 62 III.2 Air Passenger Threshold for Airport Express Bus Service 164 Forecasts of Active Pilots, Hours Flown and Aircraft Operations 63 Baseline Forecast 63 Summary 72 Forecasts of Based Aircraft and Associated Aircraft Operations 74 Summary and Conclusions 89 References 94 Aviation and Airport Group Access 1 Regional Air Passenger Demand Forecast Average Annual Growth Rates of Alternative Passenger Forecast Scenarios Scenarios for 2012–2035 Regional 1. Baseline Scenario (145.9 MAP) 2.5% p.a. Transportation Plan 2. Low Growth Scenario (130.0 MAP) 2.1% p.a. 3. High Growth Scenario (164.0 MAP) 3.0% p.a. Background Average Annual Growth Rates of Recent Industry and Regional Passenger Forecasts The SCAG Aviation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) approved three alternative 2035 1. FAA Aerospace Forecast 3.2% p.a. regional air passenger demand forecast scenarios for commercial airports, to be con- 2. Boeing 3.2% p.a. sidered for potential inclusion in SCAG’s 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 3. Airbus 2.7% p.a. These include baseline/medium growth, low growth, and high growth scenarios. ATAC members agreed that the scenarios present a reasonable range of possible growth rates 4. California regional studies 1.4% to 2.8% p.a. for commercial aviation in the region over the next 25 years. This report describes these In general, the annual growth rates of these air passenger forecast scenarios for the forecast scenarios, including an allocation of 2035 passenger demand to individual com- SCAG region (baseline/medium growth, high growth and low growth) are somewhat mercial airports for each scenario. It also presents the recommendation made by ATAC lower than growth rates in forecasts developed by the FAA, Boeing and Airbus, and are at its September 22, 2011 meeting for the Baseline Scenario to serve as the Preferred generally consistent with growth rates in forecasts developed by the other two regions Regional Air Passenger Demand Forecast for the 2012–2035 RTP, with several caveats. in California. However, the Low Growth Scenario growth rate is not as low as the lowest growth rates recently considered by the other California regions. Strategically, the upper I. Comparison of Regional Air Passenger Demand Forecasts forecast in the High Growth Scenario is more important than the lower forecast, since the with Other Recent Forecasts upper forecast determines whether or not the region may run out of airport capacity ear- lier than was anticipated if it is too low. If it is too high, the forecast can just be pushed Recent aviation industry air passenger demand forecasts have been reviewed for farther out into the future when it is updated by the next RTP cycle. consistency with the 2035 baseline, the high and low growth regional air passenger demand forecast scenarios, all of which were approved by the ATAC for inclusion in the At several ATAC meetings, members debated the reasonableness of the growth rates in 2012–2035 RTP. Those recent forecasts include ones completed by the Federal Aviation the Baseline, High Growth and Low Growth scenarios. In general, the members thought Administration (FAA), Boeing, Airbus, the San Francisco Bay Area (Regional Airport they bracketed a reasonable a reasonable range of possible growth rates for commercial System Plan Analysis) and San Diego County (Regional Aviation Strategic Plan). A com- aviation in the region over the next 25 years, which is consistent with other recent fore- parison of the yearly (per annum) growth rates between these forecasts can be seen casts (although the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego have considered even lower below. The combined commercial activity level served by the six air carrier airports in yearly growth rates than what is reflected in the Low Growth Scenario). the region in 2010 was 81.48 million annual air passengers (MAP). This is up from the 79.08 MAP they served in 2009, but it is still significantly lower than the 90.06 MAP they served in 2007. 2 Aviation and Airport Ground Access II. Descriptions and Allocations for 2035 Baseline, The assumptions and parameters used to model the 2035 Constrained Scenario for the Low Growth and High Growth Regional Air Passenger 2008 RTP are as follows: Demand Forecast Scenarios LAX: Settlement Agreement: 78.9 MAP Bob Hope: Existing terminal/gate capacity: 9.4 MAP 1. BASELINE SCENARIO (145.9 MAP) Long Beach: Flight restriction of 41 air carrier flights/day: 3.2 MAP The 2035 Baseline Scenario is essentially the same as the 2035 Constrained/No Project John Wayne: Revised Settlement Agreement: 10.8 MAP Scenario that was modeled and evaluated as part of the 2008 RTP. The Constrained Ontario: Existing runway capacity: 31.6 MAP Scenario was characterized in the 2008 RTP as a very conservative vision for the regional San Bernardino and Palmdale: Charter, corporate & commuter/short haul airport system. It assumed no intra-regional maglev high-speed rail system, no market March and Southern California Logistics: Cargo, charter and corporate incentives, and very conservative behavior on the part of the airlines in adding flights at new and emerging airports (although all air carrier airports that desire commercial service Oxnard and Imperial: Corporate, charter and commuter only were allocated some passenger demand even if they currently serve none). Like the other Planned (2008 RTP) ground access improvements scenarios in the 2008 RTP, the Constrained Scenario respected existing legally-enforce- No market incentives able policy and physical capacity constraints at urban airports. No high-speed rail (intra-regional Maglev system) In 2003 the legally-enforceable Settlement Agreement at John Wayne Airport was Doubling of aircraft fuel costs amended to allow it to expand from 8.4 MAP to 10.8 MAP, so this new policy constraint was incorporated into the 2008 RTP Constrained Scenario. A more detailed evaluation of However, Long Beach Airport reached 3.0 MAP in 2010, and will likely exceed its esti- the runway capacity constraint at Ontario Airport raised its capacity constraint from 30.0 mated 3.2 MAP constraint in the near future since it still has most of its 25 available MAP to 31.6 MAP. The Bob Hope terminal gate constraint of 10.7 MAP that was used in commuter slots yet to be filled. The Terminal Improvement EIR forecast for Long Beach the 2004 RTP was lowered to 9.4 MAP since Bob Hope Airport staff determined that the Airport was 4.2 MAP, which was also the forecast for Long Beach Airport in the 2008 RTP four remote aircraft parking gates assumed in the 2004 plan were no longer available for adopted Preferred Scenario regional aviation forecast. Therefore, the allocation to Long aviation uses. At the request of the March Joint Powers Commission, instead of assum- Beach is increased to 4.2 MAP in the Baseline Scenario, and 1 MAP is subtracted from ing that March Inland Port was unconstrained, it was considered to be constrained by Ontario and San Bernardino airports on a proportional basis (to keep to the 145.9 MAP the 21,000 annual civilian operations allowed in the operative joint use agreement with total). This is reasonable since the increased service at Long Beach will likely draw from the Air Force. A RADAM model capacity analysis determined that this constraint equates the same Los Angeles County and Orange County markets that these airports would also to 2.5 MAP at March Inland Port, compared to an 8.0 MAP 2030 unconstrained forecast draw from in 2035. Also, previous RADAM modeling showed that Ontario Airport barely for March in the 2004 RTP. A refined capacity analysis of San Bernardino International’s reached its 31.6 MAP capacity constraint in the Constrained Scenario, and could easily one-runway system produced a runway capacity constraint of 8.7 MAP. Neither March nor fall below this number using different modeling assumptions. These adjustments result in San Bernardino reached their capacity constraints in the Constrained Scenario due to its a slight re-allocation of the forecast demand for the Baseline Scenario compared to the conservative assumptions about future airline air service behavior. 2008 RTP Constrained Scenario. Aviation and Airport Group Access 3 2. LOW GROWTH SCENARIO (130 MAP) The relative airport allocations between the Baseline/Medium Growth, High Growth and Low Growth scenarios are shown in TABLE 1 below.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Noise Element
    NOISE ELEMENT Prepared by: Planning & Development Services County of Imperial 801 Main Street El Centro, California 92243-2875 JIM MINNICK Planning Director Approved by: Board of Supervisors October 6, 2015 NOISE ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Preface 1 B. Purpose of the Noise Element 1 C. Noise Measurement 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS 4 A. Preface 4 B. Noise Sources 4 C. Sensitive Receptors 13 III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 14 A. Preface 14 B. Goals and Objectives 14 C. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements 15 IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS AND POLICIES 17 A. Preface 17 B. Noise Impact Zones 17 C. Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards 18 D. Programs and Policies 23 APPENDICES A. Glossary of Terms A-1 B. Airport Noise Contour Maps B-1 Planning & Development Services Noise Element Page ii (Adopted November 9, 1993 MO#18) (Revised October 6, 2015 MO#18b) LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 1. Existing Noise Sources 5 B-1 Future Noise Contours Brawley Municipal Airport B-1 B-2 Future Noise Impact Area Calexico International Airport B-2 B-3 Future Noise Impact Area Calipatria Municipal Airport B-3 B-4 Future Noise Impact Area Imperial County Airport B-4 B-5 Future Noise Impact Area NAF El Centro B-5 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 1. Typical Sound Levels 3 2. Existing Railroad Noise Levels 6 3. Imperial County Interstate and State Highway Traffic and Noise Data (Existing Conditions) 8 4. Imperial County Interstate and State Highway Traffic And Noise Data (Future/Year 2015 Conditions) 10 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Experienced Jumper Information Pvas #: ______
    FOR OFFICE USE ONLY EXPERIENCED JUMPER INFORMATION PVAS #: ________________ FIRST NAME: _____________________ LAST NAME: _______________________________ Home Address: ___________________________________________ CITY: _________________________ State/Provence: ______________________ Post Code: ____________ Country: ___________________ Home Ph#: __________________________________ Cell Ph#: __________________________________ (if international, please include country & city codes) (if international, please include country & city codes) E-Mail: _________________________________________________________________________________ Birthdate: __________________________ Weight: _________________ Height: _________________ (Month / Day / Year) Driver's License # or Foreign Passport #: _______________ Occupation: __________________________ SKYDIVING MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION USPA #: _______________ Expiration Date: _______________ License #: ____________________ If Temporary USPA issued... Date Issued: __________________ Expiration Date: __________________ or Foreign Membership #: ________________________ Expiration Date: __________________________ EMERGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Please list at least one person who can be contacted other than friends you are here jumping with (We provide this information to emergency medical personnel in case of an injury) 1. Name: _______________________________________ Relationship: _________________________ Home Ph#: ____________________________ Cell/Work Ph#: ________________________________ (if international, please include
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT (F70) 37600 Sky Canyon Dr
    FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT (F70) 37600 Sky Canyon Dr. Murrieta, CA Phone: 951-600-7297 Riverside FAA FSDO Complaint Line: (951) 276-6701 Visit the F70 website for additional information regarding the airport and procedures at www.rcfva.org Federal Aviation Administration FAA Headquarters 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 www.faa.gov/contact Feedback is always appreciated at [email protected] INTRODUCTION In response to community interest, this booklet was developed to provide an overview of Airport operations and the complaint process. It will explain how and what aircraft operate in vicinity of F70, their interaction with our neighbors, and how complaints are handled. (F70 is the identifier selected by Federal Aviation Administration for the French Valley Airport. All airports have a three- character identifier; local examples are ONT for Ontario International Airport and LAX for Los Angeles Airport.) AIRPORT HISTORY In the late 1970s, discussion and planning began on relocating the existing Rancho California Airport due, in part, to safety deficiencies. In addition, the airport was leased to the County with the owner not wanting to renew the lease. An evaluation leading to the identification and selection of potential new sites was undertaken in June 1983. In June 1985 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution designating the French Valley site as the replacement site for the existing Rancho California Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration approved the French Valley Airport Layout plan in 1985 and funded four grants for land acquisition. Initial construction of French Valley Airport began in October 1987 and was completed in April 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study and Negative Declaration: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Perris Valley Airport
    INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR PERRIS VALLEY AIRPORT Prepared for: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Prepared by: Commission Staff Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 October 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page [Proposed] Negative Declaration .................................................................................................1 Environmental Checklist: Initial Study Environmental Assessment ..........................................................................................................2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..............................................................................11 Environmental Determination ....................................................................................................13 Environmental Issues Assessment..............................................................................................14 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................14 Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................15 Agriculture and Forest Resources......................................................................................17 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Airspace Usage
    A PPENDIX I Countywide Airspace Usage Riverside County is within one of the busiest and most complex sections of airspace in the United States, handling over 4.3 million operations annually. To better understand the magnitude of these op- erations and complexities of this system, Map 1 depicts Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations for the six busiest airports in the area for a 24-hour period on January 26, 1996. This exhibit does not depict operations from the 14 airports in Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan update. AIRSPACE STRUCTURE Since the advent of aviation, nations have established procedures within their boundaries to regulate the use of airspace. Airspace is broadly classified as either “controlled” or “uncontrolled” in the United States. The difference between the two categories relates primarily to requirements for pilot qualifica- tions, ground-to-air communications, navigation and traffic services, and weather conditions. Six classes of airspace have been designated in the United States. Airspace designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered controlled airspace. Aircraft operating within controlled airspace are subject to vary- ing requirements for positive air traffic control. The airspace in Riverside County, as illustrated on Map 2, is constantly occupied by aircraft arriving and departing from other airports in the region. Frequently, overflights experienced in communities near Riverside County airports are not the result of operations at nearby airports, but from aircraft us- ing airports outside Riverside County. After the preparation of this plan, additional approaches have been established for aircraft arriving at Los Angeles International Airport. These new approaches were not included as part of the map development process for this plan.
    [Show full text]
  • ~ COP11 Performance of Recycled Asphalt G~ DOT/FAA/PM-86/12 -/ Program Engineering Concrete Airport Pavement /.(.L-~ and Maintenance Service Washington, D.C
    ;~ COP11 Performance of Recycled Asphalt g~ DOT/FAA/PM-86/12 -/ Program Engineering Concrete Airport Pavement /.(.l-~ and Maintenance Service Washington, D.C. 20591 Surfaces G. D. Cline M.C. Hironaka Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Port Hueneme, CA 93043 Q 24 ~ ~~ ~""" r ~ 01'1• llJ. ... October t 986 Final Report This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration -----------~--~~ NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/PM-86/12 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date PERFORMANCE OF RECYCLED ASPHALT CONCRETE October 1986 AIRPORT PAVEMENT SURFACES 6. Performing Organization Code NCEL (L53) !--:::----...,-,-----------------------------1~~--~~~----~~--~----~ 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authorl s) Technical Note N-1765 Cline, G.D. and Hironaka, M.C. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAlS) Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory 53-048 Port Hueneme, California 93043-5003 11. Contract ar Grant Na. DTFA01-83-Y-30593 13. Type af Report and Period Covered ~~--------------------~--------------------------------~ 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Federal Aviation Administration Aug 1983 - May 1986 Program Engineering and Maintenance Service 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20591 APM-740 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The objective of this research was to make an assessment of the relative performance of recycled versus new asphalt concrete pavement surfaces constructed for airport facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurupa Area Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank
    Jurupa Area Plan This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS VISION SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................4 A Special Note on Implementing the Vision ................................................................................................5 LOCATION...........................................................................................................................................................6 FEATURES ..........................................................................................................................................................6 SETTING ............................................................................................................................................................6 UNIQUE FEATURES .............................................................................................................................................7 Santa Ana River ..........................................................................................................................................7 Jurupa Mountains/Pyrite Canyon ................................................................................................................7 Pedley Hills ..................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Aeronautical and Airport Land Use Compatibility Study
    Imperial County Airport (IPL) Aeronautical and Airport Land Use Compatibility Study Study Overview Michael Baker International, Inc., was tasked by the City of El Centro, California to evaluate the proposed re-zoning of four vacant parcels within the vicinity of Imperial County Airport (IPL). As shown in the graphics throughout this study, the parcels are identified by Imperial County as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 044-620-049, 044-620-050, 044-620-051, and 044- 620-053. The parcels are located at the northwest and southwest corners of Cruickshank Drive and 8th Street and are currently zoned as Residential Airport Zone (RAP) and fall within the B2 Zone (Extended Approach/Departure Zone) of the 1996 IPL Land Use Compatibility Plan and Map. Table 1 summarizes the existing and proposed characteristics of the four parcels. Since the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) last updated the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the B2 Zone is no longer defined in the same manner and some zones around runways are also defined differently for Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs). Therefore, it was necessary to review existing activity data and conditions at IPL in comparison to updated Caltrans guidance to determine if the proposed parcel re-zonings would produce incompatible land uses and/or airspace impacts. Table 1 Existing and Proposed Parcel Characteristics Zoning Land Use Parcel # Acreage Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 044-620-049 2.08 RAP CG R-R GC 044-620-050 1.05 RAP CG R-R GC 044-620-051 17.23 RAP CG R-R GC 044-620-053 21.79 RAP ML R-R GI Source: Michael Baker International, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS – Appendix R1, Data Supporting Volume
    Appendix R1.22 Public Safety and Services This appendix includes 5 tables that present airports, fire stations, police stations, landfills and schools within the Plan Area. Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX R1.22. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICES Appendix R1.22 Public Safety and Services Table R1.22-1 Airports Within and Near the Plan Area Map Key Airport Airport Land use Compatibility Plan 1 Agua Dulce Airpark 2 Apple Valley Town of Apple Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared by the Town of Apple Valley. March 1995. 3 Avi Suquilla 4 Banning Municipal 5 Barstow-Daggett Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Barstow-Daggett Airport. San Bernardino County. May 1992. 6 Bermuda Dunes 7 Big Bear City Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Big Bear City Airport. San Bernardino County. February 1992. 8 Bishop 9 Blythe 10 Brawley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Imperial County Airports. Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission. June 1996. 11 Cable Cable Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. West Valley Planning Agency Airport Land Use Commission. December 9, 1981. 12 Calexico International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Imperial County Airports. Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission. June 1996. 13 General WM J Fox Airfield 14 Hesperia Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Hesperia Airport. San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission. Prepared by Ray A. Vidal Aviation Planning Consultant. January 1991. 15 Imperial County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Imperial County Airports. Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission. June 1996. 16 Inyokern (Kern County) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. County of Kern. March 29, 2011. 17 Lake Havasu City 18 Laughlin Bullhead International 19 Mojave (Kern County) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Rwy 5 Rnav (Gps)
    HEMET, CALIFORNIA AL-6678 (FAA) 20254 Rwy Idg APP CRS 4315 TDZE 1513 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5 035° Apt Elev 1515 HEMET-RYAN (HMT) RNP APCH MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 2500 then climbing left turn to T 7900 direct SETER and hold, continue climb-in-hold to 7900. A AWOS-3PT MARCH APP CON UNICOM 118.375 133.5 306.975 123.0(CTAF)L UMIT 25 H N 2931 A S M SETER 2890 M 2704 167 12700 347 ° 4050 2569 ° 7 NM 2689 5188 5000 3876 4106 2238 3000 2673 00 0 5 SW-3, 07 OCT 2021 to 04 NOV 2182 1598 2574 2281 Final approach course offset 14.89°. (MAP) HUMIT (FAF) FOMIN 3343 OTEBE 2.6 NM to HUMIT HUMAN 3 3400 0 0 035° (2.4) 0 4652 3040 3000 ° 4000 2555 3666 035) (IF/IAF) (6 WESIN 5640 SW-3, 07 OCT 2021 to 04 NOV Procedure NA for arrivals at WESIN ELEV TDZE on V186 southeast bound. 1515 1513 23 2500 7900 22 WESIN SETER P P HUMAN U 3% 25 0. X OTEBE 4 FOMIN 2014 2.6 NM to 5 100 X 5500 HUMIT 2.1 NM to 035 4315 ° 3.02° HUMIT H 4000 TCH 40 HUMIT 3400 2520 Rwy 4-22 restricted for 6 NM 2.4 NM 2.7 NM 0.5 NM 2.1 0.5 glider operations. CATEGORY A B C D 1 1 2360-1 2360-14 2360-2 2 LNAV MDA NA 1 1 847 (900-1) 847 (900-14 ) 847 (900-2 2 ) 1 2360-1 2400-14 2600-3 CIRCLING NA 1 MIRL Rwy 5-23 L 845 (900-1) 885 (900-14 ) 1085 (1100-3) HEMET, CALIFORNIA HEMET-RYAN (HMT) Orig-D 10SEP20 33°44'N-117°01'W RNAV (GPS) RWY 5 M1 A ALTERNATE MINS A 21280 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS A IFR ALTERNATE AIRPORT MINIMUMS Standard alternate minimums for non-precision approaches and approaches with vertical guidance [NDB, VOR, LOC, TACAN, LDA, SDF, VOR/DME, ASR, RNAV (GPS) or RNAV (RNP)] are 800-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transit Countywide Performance Report
    AUGUST 2018 Riverside County Public Transportation Annual Countywide Performance Report FY 2016/2017 Prepared by This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction n 1 About This Report | 1 Context for Public Transit | 1 Performance Reporting n 3 Purposes | 3 The Measures | 3 Policy and Compliance | 4 Utilization | 7 Accessibility and Coverage | 10 Connectivity | 20 Resources | 21 Summary of How We’re Doing n 21 What Do This Year’s Indicators Suggest for Riverside County Public Transportation | 27 New Transit Initiatives n 21 City of Corona | 26 City of Riverside | 26 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency | 27 Pass Transit - City of Banning | 28 Pass Transit - City of Beaumont | 28 Riverside Transit Agency | 28 Sunline Transit Agency | 29 The Challenge Going Forward n 30 Strategies to Promote Responsiveness to Customer Needs | 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendices n 32 Appendix A – Definitions, Data Sets, and References | 33 Appendix B – Public Transit Trips Provided, All Modes | 34 Appendix C – Bus Stop Location Counts by Operators Supporting Table 5 (Transfer Locations) | 35 Appendix D – Public Transit Fleet Size Over Four Fiscal Years | 39 Appendix E – Public Utilities Code Requirement for Performance Monitoring | 40 Introduction About This Report This fifth iteration of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL COUNTYWIDE PERFORMANCE REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 (COUNTYWIDE REPORT) examines the performance of public transportation services of rail, bus, demand response and specialized transportation in Riverside County. Prepared in compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 99244, this report reflects Transportation Development Act (TDA) requirements that county transportation planning agencies monitor transit provider performance. The COUNTYWIDE REPORT serves another purpose: providing a comprehensive, countywide picture of public transit expenditures and what was provided and consumed for these investments.
    [Show full text]